×
all 64 comments

[–]mouthpanties 89 points90 points  (7 children)

It was me

[–]Sariel007 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Hi, it is me, your addict that needs money.

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[deleted]

    [–]PolarisBeaver 9 points10 points  (2 children)

    Don’t listen to him! I’ll happily accept 5% of 100 million.

    [–]Unholybeef 6 points7 points  (1 child)

    I'll do it for 1% and give you a handy.

    [–]VNGS 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    Best i can do is some chucky cheese tokens and cold coffee

    [–]alliandoalice 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    It was me, Dio

    [–]Kotanaru 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    Za Waurdo

    [–]JestersHat 31 points32 points  (0 children)

    That is fantastic! And good on him/her for being anonymous.

    [–]Gayatri-Mantra 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    Sorely needed I’m sure.

    [–]lizwhiz 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    So... did Keanu drop by here too?

    [–]grrodon 39 points40 points  (31 children)

    True charity is always anonymous, the rest is self-promotion.

    [–]Sariel007 38 points39 points  (0 children)

    I get your point. I really do but I can guarantee that the people that benefit from the money don't care who gives it or if it was donated anonymously or if it was done for shameless self-promotion. Also if George Clooney, or whatever mega millionaire, gives a million dollars to charity it gets headlines to that charity and makes people aware of it in ways that an anonymous donation generally doesn't. I would assume (I have no data) that drives additional donations to that charity as well.

    What really irks me is all the smug people in this sub that say things like "That is less than 1% of their self worth, it means nothing to them! It is more meaningful if I donate $5,000 because it is more of my networth percentage wise!" I know you did't say that but a lot of people do in the celebrity X donates X dollars threads.

    Just my 2 cents. Rant off.

    [–]rkellybelongsinjail 11 points12 points  (18 children)

    That’s not what charity means

    [–]grrodon -1 points0 points  (17 children)

    "Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
    So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full" - Jesus, reportedly
    But what the fuck did he know about that, right?

    [–]papivebipi 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    Seneca, the Roman philosopher, argued that anonymous giving freed the recipient from embarrassment and the burden of feeling any need to reciprocate.

    In Judaism the second highest level of charity is:

    Level Two: Giving anonymously, where the recipient does not know the giver and vice versa.

    Receiving mutually anonymous tzedakah takes much of the sting out of being on the receiving end. It is far better when we lend aid to others unconsciously — when we give ourselves over to others so completely that our egos merge with theirs, and neither is conscious of being in a superior or inferior position.

    In Islam:

    As per the Holy Quran, to speak a kind word and to forgive people's faults is better than charity followed by injury. There are certain needy people who do not like to beg. You may be unaware of their circumstances and may suppose them to be wealthy because of their dignified bearing, but you will know them by their countenance...And whatever wealth you will spend on helping them, Allah will know of it.

    “If you disclose your Sadaqaat (almsgiving), it is well; but if you conceal them and give them to the poor, that is better for you.” [Quran 2:271]

    “THE LEFT HAND SHOULDN’T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT IS DOING”

    [–]rkellybelongsinjail 0 points1 point  (10 children)

    Better be a good Christian, otherwise the god that loves you will send you to hell for eternity- you know, because he loves you. He’s also going to torture all of those damn Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Aborigines (Christianity didn’t even arrive to Australia until the year 1788 🤔) and all the little children who have been lead astray by their culturally differing parents. What a load of shit.

    The Church loves its happy-clappy verses about acceptance, charity, love and forgiveness. But never forget that the love narrative is constructed upon constant threats of anger, judgement, torture, flames and destruction- most of all an egregious misunderstanding of the way the universe actually works paired with one of the most ethnocentric ideologies still adhered to today.

    [–]grrodon -1 points0 points  (9 children)

    Nope. He never said anything about burning. There's no hell in the Gospels, at all. Forgive your enemies, share your wealth with people less lucky, mind your own sins rather than other people's, treat others as you'd like to be treated.
    That's pretty much it, all things that flew over people's heads.
    The rest is ALL on the later Catholic, Protestants, Evangelicals and other cashgrabs.

    [–]rkellybelongsinjail 1 point2 points  (8 children)

    Matthew 10:28, Matthew 22:13. Jesus said more of hell than anyone in the bible. Jesus was the one who compared hell to the Valley of Hinnom.

    Luke 16:19–31. The passage is about a rich man who played the ultimate fool by luxuriating in his wealth, ignoring true faith in God and service to humanity, until he found himself in hell for his godless selfishness.

    You are choosing to believe what you want, rather than what we’ve known all this time- there is a mass consensus on this that can be validated if you’d just read your book of lies, the bible.

    [–]grrodon -1 points0 points  (7 children)

    The day has come where an agnostic socialist must defend himself from a rabid atheist for citing Jesus.

    [–]rkellybelongsinjail 0 points1 point  (6 children)

    The day as come for socialists to understand the nonsense the cite

    [–]grrodon 1 point2 points  (5 children)

    Wait what? I thought I had cited a part anyone who consider themselves to be decent people could stand by.
    You were at my throat just because you didn't like where it came from. You didn't even address the merit of the citation's content.
    But I blame myself for answering after you moved the goalposts. I should have noticed immediately.

    [–]rkellybelongsinjail 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    I suppose if Adolf Hitler had a decent poem on how important it is to respect your elders it would be an applicable quote, and no cause for concern to anyone as long as they respected their elders.

    [–]rkellybelongsinjail -1 points0 points  (4 children)

    Also from Jesus “believe in me and my dad-self, because we love you, or we will burn you in hell for eternal torturous agonizing misery- despite the fact that you may be part of the billions of people who grew up into a different culture.”

    Yeah, that sounds like a reputable source for good deeds lmao

    [–]grrodon 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    Nope. Never said anything about burning. There's no hell in the Gospels, at all. Forgive your enemies, share your wealth with people less lucky, mind your own sins rather than other people's, treat others as you'd like to be treated.
    That's pretty much it, all things that flew over people's heads.
    The rest is ALL on the later Catholic, Protestants, Evangelicals and other cashgrabs.

    [–]rkellybelongsinjail -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

    I've spent years of in depth theological study, mountains of books by Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, Josh McDowell, C.S. Lewis, John White, Ravi Zacharia, Francis S. Collins, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Thomas Paine, Aron Ra, the list goes on and on. Hundreds of hours of lectures, debates, sermons, discussions, interviews. Years and years of pondering, questioning and studying the Bible in its entirety, non-canonical (apocryphal) texts like Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger. Study of the Septuagint. Parallel readings of the gospels.

    All I can say at this point, and to get to this point I have vastly more knowledge than the run of the mill professing Christian. I have grown to enjoy learning about the evolution of religion. From its early animistic beginnings, right up to the monotheism of the big three Abrahamic religions. I must tell you- respectfully- that you are a fool if you are a “Christian” that doesn’t believe in Hell.

    [–]grrodon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I'm not a Christian, I'm a Socialist, like Jesus.

    [–]its0nLikeDonkeyKong[🍰] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    This is like a middle school level anti Jesus rant

    [–]spoodmon97 2 points3 points  (8 children)

    What you your self promoting so you can have more money to give away?

    [–]grrodon 1 point2 points  (7 children)

    Sure, why invest in advertising? So you have more money to invest in advertising?

    [–]spoodmon97 0 points1 point  (6 children)

    but you aren't investing in advertising. You're investing in something good and taking advantage of the side effect that that itself advertises for you.

    [–]grrodon 0 points1 point  (5 children)

    Yep. And since you know that, you're advertising.

    [–]spoodmon97 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    Yes but the primary purpose wasn't the advertisement. You're taking advantage of an opportunity that is there, you are still investing the money in a good cause. The advertising is a free side effect basically.

    [–]grrodon 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    You used the right word, and still can't see the issue. You are taking advantage. You want props. You're doing it for yourself.

    [–]spoodmon97 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    There's nothing wrong with that. What do you think everyone should just give all their shit away? You don't need it you're just taking advantage of what you can for survival, right?

    [–]grrodon 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    No, no, it's OK, just don't call it charity. Charity is selfless.

    [–]spoodmon97 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    All charities I'm aware of are self serving in some way or other, so I guess it just doesn't exist then

    [–]PM_PICS_OF_UR_PUPPER 7 points8 points  (1 child)

    Of course we all know it’s Ted Danson.

    [–]Baller3147 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    Bruce Wayne

    [–]uzbekibekibekistan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Rob Ford’s ghost?

    [–]shua_good 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    Ontario need help

    [–]Chang-San 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Not as much as Toronto, I mean even the mayor was on crack

    [–]shua_good 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Those were good times

    [–]Bobjohndud 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    florida jackpot dude maybe?

    [–]scruffbeard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Good, Toronto folks are fucked! Sidenote: used to live there.

    [–]j94982 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    Ah You got me Reddit.

    [–]ash3s -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    It was Ted Danson

    [–]PMBrewer -5 points-4 points  (3 children)

    But I thought socialized medicine worked? Why the need to donate money?

    [–]girlinvancouver 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    Has many flaws. Just like the rest of them.

    [–]Wasabiroot 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    If either of you did any research at all, you'd see it was a research hospital with an annual expenditure and budget of CAD $300 million. Donations to medical campuses like this are commonplace in the states. It has very little to do with socialized medicine.

    [–]girlinvancouver -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    lol I have lived in both Canada and the United States. I'm well aware the pros and cons of each system.